The Newtown bee., 1887-12-16
A Woodbury Land Suit.


 very interesting land suit, involving the title to desirable building lot in the very center of the village between the two south churches, has been tried before Judge Torrance of the Superior court at Waterbury. It is a lot of two rods front on Main street by seven rods in depth. The trial lasted two days. It was an act ion of trespass, both parties claiming title. The paper title presented by the plaintiff consisted of five deeds and that by the de- fendants of 57 deeds, showing an unbrok- en title from the first settlement of the town in May, 1872, to the present date and perpetuated Repositories and oral evidence showing an unbroken chain of possession between the same dates. very brief statement will show clearly the facts in the case. The name of the case is Walter $. Curtis against Roderick Atwood.
 On the 20th day of April, 1859, Lieut.. Thomas Wheeler, one of the original pro prietors of Woodbury, received deed of the entire territory of Ancient Wood bury' from the Indians. The bi-centen- nial anniversary of this event was celebrat- ed by Woodbury on the 4th and 9th of Ju- ly, 1859 In subsequent years, this grant was ratified to all the original proprietors l of Woodbury by numerous deeds from all the Indians of New Haven, Fairfield and ! title to this territory became vested in the original proprietors. On the 9th of May, | 1872. the general court of the colony of Connecticut made the following grant: This court grants MT Samuel sherman, It Will l liam Curtice, Joseph Judson and John Minor | themselves and associates, lberte to erect plan taton at Pomperoage, provided it doth not preju- l dice any former grant to any other plantation or l particular person; provided any other honest in | habitants of Stratford have liberty to join with fhn.n and thuf fhno in | many inhabitants as the place will conveniently entertain. and that they settle there within the | space of three years.
 1 The foregoing form the origin of every l title in Woodbury. Under this grant the | four men named. with 13 others who were 1 their associates, became the original "proprietors" of Woodbury and owned every foot of land in it. They formed a constitution for their government, all most as perfect as the one now governing the State. By their proprietors' commit tee, they set out school, ministerial and mill lands, laid out ways for their conven- fence, discontinuing or exchanging them 1 tor other common lands to suit the pro- prietors' convenience, made divisions of land among the proprietors. from time to l time from the common Stock-ln short did everything that the officials of well reg
 ulated community ever do. The lot of At wood is part of one of these proprietors' highways which We're never laid out by any county or town authority. The pro prietors- were the owners and did what they chose with it. When Rev Noah Ben edict was settled over the first church in Woodbury in 1760, they chose to give him among other things, the lot now belong ing to Atwood, It was part of a two rod way leading from Main street to a paral- Tel street, running on the eastern bound ary line of William Cothren's home lot. The whole way was 23 rods long from the street. The remaining 16 rods of the way was laid out to Josiah Beers, father of
 Hon Seth P. Beers on an original proprie- tors certificate obtained of the PrestUns and thus the whole way became appropri- ated to private uses. Rev Noah Benedict,
 with his own hands, dug and ''stoned" a well on hls lot in 1760, which is to his day
 one of the best wells in town. He Occu-
 pied his lot till hls death in 1913, then his son Hon Noah B. Benedict. received 1t by
 heirship and occupied it till his death in
 1851. By his will the life use was given to his widow, who occupied it till her death
 in lS61 Then the late Hon N. B Smith who derived his title by the same will, as well as by being an heir-at-law, occupied
 it until March 24, 1874, when he deeded it
 10 George P. Crane. who occupied it and
 
 , December 10, 1881 when he sold it to Rod , erick Atwood, who has held very lively , and effective possession of it to this day . From the first Indian deed and the frs l grant to the original proprietors, 21; 3 years ago, there is an unbroken title tt and possession of the premises in him anC , those under whom he claims. Were there no other title, it has been possessed ?; years longer than is necessary to acquir' an adverse title to county highway. The plaintiffs in this case were bound tt show possession and better title to tn
 disputed premises than that of the de
 fendant and to prove this they offered al
 administrator s deed to two of the child
 ren of the late Judge Charles B. Phelps
 purporting to convey the right of re
 demption Tn his homestead, adjeinin
 which are the disputed premises. Ina
 deed was dated February ?, 1860 an(
 bounded the conveyed premises west b,
 highway and on all other sides as describ k ed in Judge Phelps deed. The title o D Judge Phelps came to him through tn z medium of several deeds, all bounding tn l homestead in the same way, the first o a which deeds was that of Josiah Beers t Rev John R. Marshall. father-in-law t 3 Judge Phelps, dated April 24, 1764, givini r. the same boundaries as now exist, except f ing names of adjoining proprietors, ,chang a ed by death. heirship, or purchase, whic : deed contained the following proviso:
 N Bit is to be understood that this dee . does not include the highways leading to Rev M I | Benedicts well.
 Parson Benedict's title was thus full acknowledged and from 1760 to this dat
 the possession by him, his heirs and as
 signs has been unbroken and perfect an y undisputed The described premises hay
 been by them fenced In on three sides an open to the main street for the conyen fence of said Benedicts and their assigns
 with one or two brief interruptions b q their license and consent. Never in tn d long period of 215 years has there bee any claims to any title or possession b q any person till the present plaintiffs mad d claim in 1882. Just before the institutio d of these proceedings, when the claimant ] were peremptorily ejected and have so re
 mained no reference is made to the sever
 al claims of trespass on either side, a Z. lthey are of minor and trivial considerat
 ion when compared with the great ques D tion of title.
 The judge took the papers Cothrer ' Graves &s Warner for defendants; Coles :, Gillette for plaintiffs. .-[C.
 g BRIDGEPORT.
 q. IT.. ( n